In 1865, soldiers serving in the 62nd Colored Infantry in Texas had a dream: they wanted to start an institution of higher education for newly freed Americans in their home state of Missouri. In 1866, they established Lincoln. In 1870, Lincoln received its first state funding for teacher training. In 1890, Lincoln earned recognition as a land-grant institution, a status conferred by the federal government making it eligible for federal agricultural research grants.
For over 100 years, the federal government provided nearly all land-grant funding. That changed during the Bush Administration, when states were asked to pick up more of the tab. In Missouri, the flagship campus in Columbia received enough funding for ag research to draw the maximum in federal matching funds. This land-grant match was built into Mizzou's appropriations.
Lincoln did not fare as well. Its land-grant funding, when received at all, has been placed in a separate line-item more easily subject to gubernatorial vetoes and withholds. Since 2000, Lincoln has forfeited millions in federal agricultural research funding because the Legislature failed to appropriate enough money to match federal investment in its agricultural research.
Last year, Gov. Jay Nixon did not recommend any money for Lincoln's land-grant funding. The Legislature appropriated $500,000. This helps, but it doesn't fill the gap completely.
This year, Nixon again recommended a zero for Lincoln's land-grant funding. And, thanks to the leadership of Rep. Donna Lichtenegger, R-Jackson, the House Appropriations Committee for Higher Education appropriated $500,000 again.
Agriculture is and has always been Missouri's top industry. Nixon has reminded the Legislature of this fact in nearly every State of the State address. It defies logic that he would continually forego millions of dollars in agricultural research funding.
With help from Rep. Josh Peter, D-St. Louis, a recent Lincoln graduate, I'm hopeful that the Legislature can do more. Mizzou and Lincoln collaborate on many agricultural research projects. And just as Mizzou receives its full land-grant appropriation, so too should Lincoln.
Executive agencies don't get to write their own laws
On Wednesday, the House approved Senate Concurrent Resolution 46 to reject an administrative rule promulgated by the Department of Health and Senior Services to impose a minimum wage on home health workers.
When the Legislature passes a law to create a government program, it often also includes a provision empowering a state department to make rules to implement the program. But rule-making is not some willy-nilly anything-goes process. Agencies only have the authority statutes provide them. They don't get to write their own laws.
Last year, DHSS promulgated a rule that purported to require vendors in the home health care program pay aides a higher minimum wage. At a hearing before the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules last year, the department failed to defend the rule and admitted to key facts which showed they had not complied with state law.
In hearings on the House and Senate resolutions on the issue, no one showed up to defend the department's authority to promulgate the rule. Similarly, in floor debate, no one defended the department's authority to promulgate the rule - and there's a pretty simple reason why: the department lacked authority to do it.
After several Democrats attempted to turn the debate away from this central question, Rep. Genise Montecillo, D-St. Louis, stood to urge the House to work to increase wages for home care workers, and then she "got it." She said she suspected Nixon directed DHSS to promulgate the rule knowing the whole time that it didn't have the authority to do it, and anticipating that the General Assembly would reject it through the JCAR process.
Bingo! In his last two years, Nixon has become un-moored from the rule of law. The home health care worker rule is just one of several issues where Nixon has tried to re-write the law on his own. And each time we can, the Legislature reins him in.
Déjà vu - rejecting politician pay raises
Last year, I sponsored a resolution rejecting politician pay increases that passed before the end of January. Our state employees are the worst paid in the country, but, as much as I would enjoy a raise, Missouri politicians are doing just fine.
This year, Nixon recommended a 2 percent raise for state employees and politicians. Nixon deserves credit for putting a raise in the budget for state employees. Politicians are a different story.
On Monday, I plan to offer an amendment in the House Appropriations Committee for General Administration to take the politician pay hike out of the budget. If successful, I'll attempt to put the money into state employee health care. It won't be a huge amount, but everything helps.
State Rep. Jay Barnes, R-Jefferson City, represents Missouri's 60th District.